pax
A moral responsibility to not be incompetent. How is this being defined? As has been brought up, many "shooters" with little or no training or "old timers", who may eschew such suggestions as they "need" additional training, may be the ones who could really use the training; the incompetent ones?
How do we determine exactly when "competence" is achieved? Is there a standard that needs to be met?
In my mind it is one thing to state that we all can benefit from training, and may want to take our responsibilities as gun owners and carriers very seriously and then outlining how additional training could help in a worst case scenario; especially in light of the possibility of injuring or possibly killing an innocent person. (And if that is what you are advocating here, and I have misunderstood your intentions in any way, I apologize for my lack of understanding.)
It is quite another to state a moral obligation to obtain such training; especially with a determined standard, worse yet with a "as of yet to be determined standard" or "when I say so". I find this mindset inseparable from the concept of state and/or federal regulation and at odds with an inalienable right.
This statement is greatly disturbing to me on a multitude of levels. But, as you say,Laws requiring training before allowing people to concealed carry are sometimes politically expedient, but they aren't based on any rational measure.
I note a great deal of conviction in your words.Now, setting that firmly aside.
I wonder if you share the same sense of moral obligation in regard to training that Glenn E. Meyer states:How much training YOU should receive thus isn't really about the laws. It's about YOUR personal situation and YOUR personal sense of morals / ethics / duty.
The issue for me is that you have the moral responsibility not to do harm through incompetence when you act in an environment that contains more people than you!
A moral responsibility to not be incompetent. How is this being defined? As has been brought up, many "shooters" with little or no training or "old timers", who may eschew such suggestions as they "need" additional training, may be the ones who could really use the training; the incompetent ones?
How do we determine exactly when "competence" is achieved? Is there a standard that needs to be met?
In my mind it is one thing to state that we all can benefit from training, and may want to take our responsibilities as gun owners and carriers very seriously and then outlining how additional training could help in a worst case scenario; especially in light of the possibility of injuring or possibly killing an innocent person. (And if that is what you are advocating here, and I have misunderstood your intentions in any way, I apologize for my lack of understanding.)
It is quite another to state a moral obligation to obtain such training; especially with a determined standard, worse yet with a "as of yet to be determined standard" or "when I say so". I find this mindset inseparable from the concept of state and/or federal regulation and at odds with an inalienable right.